Amazon settles 1984 suit, sets limits on Kindle deletions

Amazon has settled a suit brought by a student angered that his notes vanished …

Amazon set off an online uproar when, in response to the discovery that it was vending unlicensed literary content, it summarily deleted copies of works by George Orwell from the Kindles of some users. Now, as part of the settlement from a lawsuit that ensued, the company has publicly clarified the policy that will govern any future deletions.

Amazon's initial decision to delete the works after purchase outraged many Kindle owners, but the company quickly admitted that the decision was a mistake and said that, under similar circumstances, it would not take the same action. But that left some people wondering if there were situations where content might still be deleted.

Others remained bothered by the fact that some of their own work vanished along with the Orwell text. One of the Kindle's highly touted features is the ability to attach notes directly to sections of the text; these did not survive the deletion. At least one user, Justin Gawronski, was annoyed enough to take action, filing a suit against the retailer after the notes he took as part of a school assignment vanished. More worrisome for Amazon, presumably, were his attempts to have the suit turned into a class action on behalf of all the other Orwell buyers.

Since that suit was filed, however, Amazon has offered affected users a new (presumably legal) copy of the lost works or a $30 gift certificate, good for three new books. That apparently took the wind out of the Gawronski's sails. The Seattle site TechFlash spotted that the suit has now been settled. In a series of stipulations, the parties agree that the new refund offer left Gawronski feeling he no longer had a case: "Plaintiffs believe they would not likely be able to certify classes under Rule 23(b)(3) because of Amazon’s offer to fully reimburse affected consumers for all Subject Works previously removed by Amazon from Devices and to restore notes and annotations."

But that's not the most interesting aspect of the settlement. In it, Amazon's attorneys agreed to legally binding terms that describe its content deletion policy. When it comes to blog and periodical content, as well as software, Amazon retains the right to perform a remote delete. But when it comes to books, deletions will only occur under a limited number of circumstances: failed credit card transactions, judicial orders, malware, or the permission of the user.

Amazon is also covering Gawronski's lawyer fees, but only with the understanding that the proceeds be given to charity, preferably one focused on literacy, education, or health.

Typically, legal settlements are sealed to prevent the terms from being made public, but you can understand why both parties were happy to let this one come to light, given that the primary result is a healthy donation to charity. And, presumably, Amazon wants the opportunity to explain its deletion policy in more detail.

Giving the money to charity! The term "Kudos!" doesn't even cover how awesome that is. The kid wanted to make a change in a bogus policy as his primary goal and the proof is in the pudding (money he didn't take).

We will all benefit from this very important decision, as e-readers grow in popularity. He set out to benefit society at large, and he proved that was his intent. I'd say the kid's a hero! Where's the ticker tape parade?!?!

The limits on the deletion seem to be restricted to books while blogs and periodical content can be deleted by Amazon at will. Fear of 1984 like actions are thus still very much alive even after the settlement. Some interesting ideas about the kindle, its dangers, and its effect on the future of literature: http://www.pandalous.com/topic/is_the_world_ready_for

Sorry Amazon, but Kindle is still a non-starter for me. No one can reach into my computer and delete blogs, periodicals and software without going through the US Courts system. I would not recommend anyone buy a Kindle until they have the same civil rights on their Kindle as they have in their home.

This is immoral and illegal. If unauthorized content is published on any device, it should be deleted immediately. If there is any question, the content should be deleted immediately, then if the content is proved to be authorized, it should be restored. If unauthorized content is not deleted as soon as possible, the company publishing that content should be sued out of existence.

Amazon never had the rights to publish this work. Deletion of this work was their only choice.

Originally posted by Irda Ranger:Sorry Amazon, but Kindle is still a non-starter for me. No one can reach into my computer and delete blogs, periodicals and software without going through the US Courts system. I would not recommend anyone buy a Kindle until they have the same civil rights on their Kindle as they have in their home.

I wasn't happy about the 1984 deletions either. However, I just bought a used Kindle 1 because the Sony solutions seemed like poor substitutes. I just don't buy from the Amazon store and keep the data connection switch off.

Originally posted by Daros:When these deletions occur, will Amazon from now on keep users' notes on the device? Seems that was half the suit..

Actually the notes were never deleted. The problem was, without the book, the notes were useless. If you have a note saying "Research this term", then without the book you don't know which term you were refering to.

But on July 20, when Gawronski turned on his Kindle, he watched his copy of “Nineteen Eighty-Four” disappear right before his eyes. “It was a bit ironic,” he said.

Amazon didn’t delete the file containing Gawronski’s notes on the Kindle device. But since the book text “no longer exists, all my notes refer back to nothing,” he said. “I can’t really use it for much.”

Originally posted by EatingPie:Giving the money to charity! The term "Kudos!" doesn't even cover how awesome that is. The kid wanted to make a change in a bogus policy as his primary goal and the proof is in the pudding (money he didn't take).

We will all benefit from this very important decision, as e-readers grow in popularity. He set out to benefit society at large, and he proved that was his intent. I'd say the kid's a hero! Where's the ticker tape parade?!?!

Awesome!!

-Pie

Giving a portion of the lawyer's fees to a charity was one of the stipulations set by Amazon when it agreed to pay them, it was not a decision made by Gawronski. Though I'm being semantic since it's a good thing no matter who's idea it was.

Originally posted by Ralf The Dog:This is immoral and illegal. If unauthorized content is published on any device, it should be deleted immediately. If there is any question, the content should be deleted immediately, then if the content is proved to be authorized, it should be restored. If unauthorized content is not deleted as soon as possible, the company publishing that content should be sued out of existence.

Amazon never had the rights to publish this work. Deletion of this work was their only choice.

If Amazon didn't have this option on their e-book reader then you'd have no issues if they broke into your house, hooked up your Kindle to a computer and deleted it without your knowledge. Got it. Just because the fucking device is on the net doesn't give anyone the right to go into it. The device is mine. I don't care what your damn EULA says. Amazon screwed up when it comes to the sale of 1984. They should be paying fines for doing that instead of reaching into people's devices without their consent. Again I'm selling my Kindle once I'm done with my current set of books on it and a viable store comes out. That feature should NEVER have been incorporated into the system. Period.

Originally posted by Ralf The Dog:This is immoral and illegal. If unauthorized content is published on any device, it should be deleted immediately. If there is any question, the content should be deleted immediately, then if the content is proved to be authorized, it should be restored. If unauthorized content is not deleted as soon as possible, the company publishing that content should be sued out of existence.

Amazon never had the rights to publish this work. Deletion of this work was their only choice.

If Amazon didn't have this option on their e-book reader then you'd have no issues if they broke into your house, hooked up your Kindle to a computer and deleted it without your knowledge. Got it. Just because the fucking device is on the net doesn't give anyone the right to go into it. The device is mine. I don't care what your damn EULA says. Amazon screwed up when it comes to the sale of 1984. They should be paying fines for doing that instead of reaching into people's devices without their consent. Again I'm selling my Kindle once I'm done with my current set of books on it and a viable store comes out. That feature should NEVER have been incorporated into the system. Period.

It would be wrong for Amazon not to have the ability. If someone were to jack your car, then take it to the used car dealership and sell it and I were to buy the car, would I have the right to keep the car? I would be arrested while driving down the street. If I did not have a reasonable expectation that the car was stolen, the district attorney would probably drop any charges against me.

The people who downloaded the book received stolen property. They should not go to jail because they did not know the property they received was stolen. Amazon when designing the Kindle built in reasonable safeguards to return the property to those who own it. They had a legal and moral responsibility to do so. What if it had been inappropriate pictures of 12 year old kids. What if the kids were yours.

Originally posted by siliconaddict:If Amazon didn't have this option on their e-book reader then you'd have no issues if they broke into your house, hooked up your Kindle to a computer and deleted it without your knowledge.

For real. Amazon should be required to inform the buyer BEFORE the sale is made in big letters, "WE CAN DELETE ANY OF YOUR CONTENT AT WILL (except for books...now....)". Then let's see just how many kindles are sold. In fact, I think I'll write my congressman and senators about that now....

Originally posted by Ralf The Dog:This is immoral and illegal. If unauthorized content is published on any device, it should be deleted immediately. If there is any question, the content should be deleted immediately, then if the content is proved to be authorized, it should be restored. If unauthorized content is not deleted as soon as possible, the company publishing that content should be sued out of existence.

Amazon never had the rights to publish this work. Deletion of this work was their only choice.

If Amazon didn't have this option on their e-book reader then you'd have no issues if they broke into your house, hooked up your Kindle to a computer and deleted it without your knowledge. Got it. Just because the fucking device is on the net doesn't give anyone the right to go into it. The device is mine. I don't care what your damn EULA says. Amazon screwed up when it comes to the sale of 1984. They should be paying fines for doing that instead of reaching into people's devices without their consent. Again I'm selling my Kindle once I'm done with my current set of books on it and a viable store comes out. That feature should NEVER have been incorporated into the system. Period.

I don't think you are a stupid man. You knew they had this ability. Not having this ability would be criminal negligence. If they did not have this ability, no publisher would let there works be distributed by way of Kindle. Executives at Amazon would be at risk of prison if works had been distributed illegitimately. The ability of revocation gives them a much better chance at claiming safe harbor.

Originally posted by Ralf The Dog:The people who downloaded the book received stolen property. They should not go to jail because they did not know the property they received was stolen. Amazon when designing the Kindle built in reasonable safeguards to return the property to those who own it. They had a legal and moral responsibility to do so. What if it had been inappropriate pictures of 12 year old kids. What if the kids were yours.

Hey Ralf, how about if GM (or whoever made your car) puts a remote disable device in your car so they can disable your car AT ANY TIME and FOR ANY REASON? Huh? How about that? It's only to protect you from the thieves!

Originally posted by Ralf The Dog:What if it had been inappropriate pictures of 12 year old kids. What if the kids were yours.

WTF? A "think about the children" comment? Where the hell did this come from?

This lawsuit at least made them spell out better terms for how they will deal with this in the future, though that should have been spelled out long ago. It's still not enough for me to actually want a Kindle - far too closed and proprietary for my tastes.

Originally posted by Ralf The Dog:I don't think you are a stupid man. You knew they had this ability. Not having this ability would be criminal negligence. If they did not have this ability, no publisher would let there works be distributed by way of Kindle. Executives at Amazon would be at risk of prison if works had been distributed illegitimately. The ability of revocation gives them a much better chance at claiming safe harbor.

Selling mp3s would be stupid. Anyone can then distribute that mp3 to anyone else that has a computer or mp3 player. Not DRMing music would be criminal negligence. If music didn't have DRM then no one would be able to sell digital music. Amazon executives would risk jail time if they ever started selling mp3s.

The problem is Amazon are book burners and declare they will REMAIN book burners.

To fix the problem they have to remove the ability to remotely delete the contents of Kindles COMPLETELY, and make a legally binding declaration they will not EVER delete anything on someone else's property again.

Failing that, shut them down. Boycott Amazon if nothing else. I'm doing it--in spite of having a gift-certificate (received before this mess). $50 I'll never get to spend. Sigh.

My position may seem radical but I was raised that you do not damage books. EVER. For any reason. An eBook is still a book. End of story. No exceptions.

Amazon screwed up. They are *still* screwed up and they refuse to fix it.

Originally posted by Ralf The Dog:What if it had been inappropriate pictures of 12 year old kids. What if the kids were yours.

WTF? A "think about the children" comment? Where the hell did this come from?

This lawsuit at least made them spell out better terms for how they will deal with this in the future, though that should have been spelled out long ago. It's still not enough for me to actually want a Kindle - far too closed and proprietary for my tastes.

Or pictures of you and your wife or girlfriend taken by a blackmailer.

I understand why this case was settled but still have grave issues with the outcome and will not even consider the purchase of a Kindle as presentle implemented.

1) The plaintiff should have recovered his atorney fees and it should not have been contingent on them being donated to charity. In effects this ammount to the Plaintiff being forced to make a contribution to charity not Amazon.

2) Amazon should have been required to pay compensatory damages. Amazon's actions did cause very real harm. They deprived the plaintiff of the fruits of his labor. This fact that he was a student does not mean that the labor in question was valueless. Furthermore the belated restoration of said notes failed to make the plaintiff whole in that the value of the notes in question was time dependent. Restoring the notes after the due date for the school assignment had passed failed to undo the damage done completely.

3) Amazon should have been asessed Punitive damages and possibly Criminal Charges for gaining Unauthorized Access to the plaintifs device.

4) Finally their should have been an injunction issued against Amazon prohibiting them from similar behavior, under any circumstances, if the future. By this I mean that they should be prohibited from adding, removing or modifying any content on the owner's device without the express consent (on a case by case basis) of the owner.

A combination of all of the above would have represented a satisfactory resolution to this incident. Instead we have Amazon evading justice do to the inequities of our legal system which enables well heeled corporate entities to avoid justice by wreaking financial ruin on ordinary individuals we seek it in the courts.

This was neither a victory for consumers nor one for Justin Gawronski, not even close.

Originally posted by Ralf The Dog:The people who downloaded the book received stolen property. They should not go to jail because they did not know the property they received was stolen. Amazon when designing the Kindle built in reasonable safeguards to return the property to those who own it. They had a legal and moral responsibility to do so. What if it had been inappropriate pictures of 12 year old kids. What if the kids were yours.

Hey Ralf, how about if GM (or whoever made your car) puts a remote disable device in your car so they can disable your car AT ANY TIME and FOR ANY REASON? Huh? How about that? It's only to protect you from the thieves!

Originally posted by kingsack:I understand why this case was settled but still have grave issues with the outcome and will not even consider the purchase of a Kindle as presentle implemented.

1) The plaintiff should have recovered his atorney fees and it should not have been contingent on them being donated to charity. In effects this ammount to the Plaintiff being forced to make a contribution to charity not Amazon.

2) Amazon should have been required to pay compensatory damages. Amazon's actions did cause very real harm. They deprived the plaintiff of the fruits of his labor. This fact that he was a student does not mean that the labor in question was valueless. Furthermore the belated restoration of said notes failed to make the plaintiff whole in that the value of the notes in question was time dependent. Restoring the notes after the due date for the school assignment had passed failed to undo the damage done completely.

3) Amazon should have been asessed Punitive damages and possibly Criminal Charges for gaining Unauthorized Access to the plaintifs device.

4) Finally their should have been an injunction issued against Amazon prohibiting them from similar behavior, under any circumstances, if the future. By this I mean that they should be prohibited from adding, removing or modifying any content on the owner's device without the express consent (on a case by case basis) of the owner.

A combination of all of the above would have represented a satisfactory resolution to this incident. Instead we have Amazon evading justice do to the inequities of our legal system which enables well heeled corporate entities to avoid justice by wreaking financial ruin on ordinary individuals we seek it in the courts.

This was neither a victory for consumers nor one for Justin Gawronski, not even close.

Whoa Nelly! Slow down just a bit.

1. The plaintiff brought suit against Amazon for them deleting a $0.99 "public domain" eBook from his account and refunding him the costs. They did so after discovering that the book actually wasn't in the public domain and thus they had unwittenly commited copywrite infringement.

While I agree he had a complaint, I don't agree his complaint was sufficently strong that this is something that should have ever gone to court, much less that it was obvious that his legal fees for such a 'crusade' should be recoverable.

2. They never deleted his notes, they never 'deprived him of the fruits of his labor'. They simply caused those notes to be irrelevant due to the absense of anything to refer to when studying them.

3. They had authorized access to his device. Regardless of what you would like reality to be, part and parcel of having a Kindle Account is the syncing of your books on your Kindle with your books in your account.

4. Yeah, that would be nice. And given that they already have your permision to add/remove stuff when you sync up, completely pointless.

Lets try a little perspective here folks, you buy what seems to be a PD book for a buck, when it's recalled the company not only refunds your purchase but gives you a $30 gift certificate. This isn't a renactment of Farenheit 451, it's just a minor gaff made more visible due to the content of the book it occured with.

Originally posted by Wolf_OneNet:Failing that, shut them down. Boycott Amazon if nothing else. I'm doing it--in spite of having a gift-certificate (received before this mess). $50 I'll never get to spend. Sigh.

I doubt that not using the gift certificate -- so they keep the money AND the merchandise -- will bother them very much.

Originally posted by Ralf The Dog:It would be wrong for Amazon not to have the ability. If someone were to jack your car, then take it to the used car dealership and sell it and I were to buy the car, would I have the right to keep the car? I would be arrested while driving down the street. If I did not have a reasonable expectation that the car was stolen, the district attorney would probably drop any charges against me.

The people who downloaded the book received stolen property. They should not go to jail because they did not know the property they received was stolen.

Well, somehow the publishing industry has been able to cope with this up until now. If Barnes and Noble (which publishes paper copies of public domain works) erroneously did a print run of a book that they believed to be in the public domain but they actually lacked the rights to, what would they do?

I'll tell you what they wouldn't do: go to everyone's houses and take those books away from the people who had purchased them. Even if they had credit card receipts they could trace you down with, they still wouldn't do that, because that's utterly insane.

What they would do is stop distributing any copies they still had, then pay the rightsholders some suitable level of damages for the ones they had distributed. And that's what Amazon's committing to do here.

quote:

Originally posted by Ralf The Dog:What if it had been inappropriate pictures of 12 year old kids. What if the kids were yours.

quote:

Originally posted by Ralf The Dog:Or pictures of you and your wife or girlfriend taken by a blackmailer.

WTF?

What if they were on someone's computer? Or someone's digital camera? Or on paper sitting on someone's desk? Do all of those have to phone home to delete potential IP violations too? Ironically enough, this reminds me a great deal of the TVs *in* the book 1984, scanning the room they were in for evidence of possible crimes.

Originally posted by Ralf The Dog:This is immoral and illegal. If unauthorized content is published on any device, it should be deleted immediately. If there is any question, the content should be deleted immediately, then if the content is proved to be authorized, it should be restored. If unauthorized content is not deleted as soon as possible, the company publishing that content should be sued out of existence.

Amazon never had the rights to publish this work. Deletion of this work was their only choice.

I'm pretty sure the court order stipulation of the agreement covers this. If Amazon.com willfully infringed on a copyright, then a court order will be issued to remove it. Very simple.

If Amazon.com is smart about it, I imagine they would negotiate suitable compensation for the infringed work to the copyright holder, and leave the consumer's purchase where it is. Also, when a consumer infringes on copyright, typically the copyright holder sues the consumer and there is no option to return the copyrighted work instead of paying out money. Why should a business be treated any differently?

Originally posted by Irda Ranger:Sorry Amazon, but Kindle is still a non-starter for me. No one can reach into my computer and delete blogs, periodicals and software without going through the US Courts system. I would not recommend anyone buy a Kindle until they have the same civil rights on their Kindle as they have in their home.

I wasn't happy about the 1984 deletions either. However, I just bought a used Kindle 1 because the Sony solutions seemed like poor substitutes. I just don't buy from the Amazon store and keep the data connection switch off.

You bought an Ugly Stic... er... Kindle 1 because Sony's solutions seemed like "poor substitutes." AND you don't buy from the Amazon store?

What???

I know people love their Kindles, just like people love their Readers. But the Kindle 1 was unequivocally ugly and poorly designed compared to Sony's products. Kindle 1 had a one HUGE advantage in the Amazon store, so if you eliminated that, I cannot at all understand how you would say Sony's solutions are "poor substitutes" (btw, the Sony Readers came first, so the Kindle is actually the "substitute!" ).

Originally posted by Staticstarter:Why anyone would knowingly buy a device the manufacturer can gain access to and delete your content is completely beyond my comprehension.

I don't care how convienient it is. My privacy is not for sale.

Besides, a physical book just feels better to read.

If you read a lot, you need to try a Kindle 2 or Reader (or Irex or etc.). In terms of the screen, it mimics a book incredibly well. I would have agreed with you in terms of ergonomics, but being able to hold a Reader up with one hand, and turn pages with that hand just trumps all the advantages of a print book (except the "don't need electricity" issue).

Obviously, I am a major fan of the Reader. But it's so much better than a regular book, my reading went up probably 10-fold or 20-fold after I purchased my Reader, and hasn't slowed at all in the last 3 years.

Originally posted by Staticstarter:Why anyone would knowingly buy a device the manufacturer can gain access to and delete the content you've licensed from them is completely beyond my comprehension.

I don't care how convienient it is. My privacy is not for sale.

Besides, a physical book just feels better to read.

I agree. It is creepy that Amazon can and will monitor everything I buy from them. No thanks, the Kindle is an awful device and those who use would be wise to think twice about the privacy implications.

Originally posted by Ralf The Dog:The people who downloaded the book received stolen property. They should not go to jail because they did not know the property they received was stolen. Amazon when designing the Kindle built in reasonable safeguards to return the property to those who own it. They had a legal and moral responsibility to do so. What if it had been inappropriate pictures of 12 year old kids. What if the kids were yours.

Hey Ralf, how about if GM (or whoever made your car) puts a remote disable device in your car so they can disable your car AT ANY TIME and FOR ANY REASON? Huh? How about that? It's only to protect you from the thieves!

Originally posted by Ralf The Dog:What if it had been inappropriate pictures of 12 year old kids. What if the kids were yours.

WTF? A "think about the children" comment? Where the hell did this come from?

This lawsuit at least made them spell out better terms for how they will deal with this in the future, though that should have been spelled out long ago. It's still not enough for me to actually want a Kindle - far too closed and proprietary for my tastes.

Or pictures of you and your wife or girlfriend taken by a blackmailer.

Your paranoia is astounding.

What if there's a structural flaw in your place of residence that causes the roof to come crashing down on your head tomorrow, and you didn't notice the warning signs because you were too busy positing ridiculous scenarios in this thread? Hey, it could happen!

Pie, which reader do you use? the first one was not all that good for me ( too heavy for the size and seemed too tinny(sp?)) I haven't looked at any other yet but I have shopped for this and have not found anything, the Kindle was on my list but too expensive then.

Originally posted by EatingPie:Giving the money to charity! The term "Kudos!" doesn't even cover how awesome that is. The kid wanted to make a change in a bogus policy as his primary goal and the proof is in the pudding (money he didn't take).

We will all benefit from this very important decision, as e-readers grow in popularity. He set out to benefit society at large, and he proved that was his intent. I'd say the kid's a hero! Where's the ticker tape parade?!?!

Awesome!!

-Pie

More exactly, it would be the ever-derided attorneys who should be commended. The kid had no power to demand that the costs be donated to charity. I'd say the attorneys are heroes.

quote:

Originally posted by Wolf_OneNet:This doesn't fix the problem.

The problem is Amazon are book burners and declare they will REMAIN book burners.

To fix the problem they have to remove the ability to remotely delete the contents of Kindles COMPLETELY, and make a legally binding declaration they will not EVER delete anything on someone else's property again.

Failing that, shut them down. Boycott Amazon if nothing else. I'm doing it--in spite of having a gift-certificate (received before this mess). $50 I'll never get to spend. Sigh.

My position may seem radical but I was raised that you do not damage books. EVER. For any reason. An eBook is still a book. End of story. No exceptions.

Amazon screwed up. They are *still* screwed up and they refuse to fix it.

Epic fail.

Wait, wait, wait. You have an issue with their new book deletion policy? Let's examine the four options, andhow your response doesn't fit in:

1) Failed credit card transaction - If you order something from Amazon and they don't ship it, you can ask them to fix it and send it or give you a refund. If they don't, you can file a chargeback and get your money back. I imagine that it is in Amazon's interest to sell rather than take back. Normally a CC transaction will be completed right away, but in the event that it isn't, this gives them a contractual recourse (like a chargeback) to reclaim their end of the bargain. This also serves to protect them if you steal someone's CC or otherwise fraudulently obtain access to someone else's money, by preventing you from reaping the rewards for that behavior. It does it through a contractual mechanism that is designed to avoid retrying what would normally already be established facts (such as the theft of card).

2) Judicial order - If a court tells them to, they will. Fairly simple.

3) Malware - Would you prefer malware on your Kindle? Or would you prefer that if Amazon became aware of a problem that you be notified and then hope that you noticed the notification and wait for you to remove the offending software. If it was low level code, you may not even be able to get to it.

4) User asks - Really? Amazon should never delete it?

I understand that books should be held in high regard. I was in line for a whupping if I ever stepped on a book. But, to believe that books should never be damaged - Do you keep them sealed at all times? Children, humidity, heat, time...they all cause damage.

Be upset with the periodical policy not changing, but with the book policy? I'd like to know which of those four you don't like.

Originally posted by Ralf The Dog:Amazon never had the rights to publish this work. Deletion of this work was their only choice.

No it wasn't.

There are provisions in copyright law for infringement, and it does not include stealing back property that you wrongfully sold. Had these been books, they could not go into your house and take them back. They would have just had to suck it up and pay damages to the rights holder.

The people who downloaded the book received stolen property. They should not go to jail because they did not know the property they received was stolen. Amazon when designing the Kindle built in reasonable safeguards to return the property to those who own it. They had a legal and moral responsibility to do so.

No, they don't.They are not a court. They are a private company. They have no right whatsoever to enter my house, not through the front door nor electronically. It is trespassing.If they wanted the book deleted, they would have had to get a court order. They can't be playing cop.

Originally posted by Ralf The Dog:Amazon never had the rights to publish this work. Deletion of this work was their only choice.

No it wasn't.

There are provisions in copyright law for infringement, and it does not include stealing back property that you wrongfully sold. Had these been books, they could not go into your house and take them back. They would have just had to suck it up and pay damages to the rights holder.

Had these been books, they would have been up the river without a paddle. As these weren't books, they weren't.

How is it that we are on a site that routinely lambasts companies for failing to adjust their thinking and business models to the current times and technologies and yet when it comes to our own lives we want the world to pretend we still live in castles with moats?

You LICENSED a work from Amazon for them to hold for you in their 'cloud' and sync up with your Kindle from wherever you are. They didn't do SHIT to you other than refund your money and remove your access to that work when they realized they didn't have the authority to provide it to you. PERIOD. Quit mimiking folks like Ted Stevens and Jack Thompson in your attempt to make this out as more than that. Did they handle this well? NO! But this isn't the jackbooted attack on freedom you attempt to make it out to be.

Here's an idea, want a Kindle and DON'T want Amazon mucking with what's on it? Don't buy your books (especially public domain ones) from Amazon! Get them from a third party and upload them from your computer to your Kindle.

Yes, it sucks doesn't it, you no longer have access to the work from anywhere in the modern world via Amazon's wireless sync abilities. Oh. No.